DigitalVolcano Software Support

First of all the comparison between 3.1.0 and 3.1.4. I ran a test on a folder nearly 80gb , 40000 files.
1. 3.1.0 took 5.50 min to list the duplicates wheras 3.1.4 took 6.28min. Ofcourse the statistics were exact. So obviously the newer version is a tad slow.

2. On a particular selection method when I marked duplicate selection , 3.1.0 was instantaneous marking 4000 duplicates. But 3.1.4 suddenly seems to blacken and the marking takes place only after 5 seconds. In fact all the duplicate marking makes it to blacken the screen.

3.I use 800 x 600 res and 3.1.0 had the correct sized fonts and accomodated a better screen presentation. In 3.1.4 the fonts seem to have enlarged ,the scroll bars have to be put to use often. Is it designed only for higher res?


The bugs!

1.First I selected by created files - newest in each group. 4017 files selected.
2.Next I excluded c:\abc (which had some files already selected by the previous operation). What I get now...4042 files!!! . I also find that the files in c:\abc still continue to be marked. I left at that.. Some serious work needs to be done.

Coming to 3.1.0 it works by maintaining 4017 files even after operation 2. Infact it unmarked the file in abc but cared to mark one in the above. Strictly speaking though even this could be wrong the number of files should have been slightly less due to the unmarking.


It will be better if the exclude file operation is made a filter to exclude amongst the selection if run after a prior selection.Also if a folder is mentioned to be excluded , even if a user operates via selection assistant later >> mark>> by group the exclusions can be maintained. It is better to err on the right side. . If it run first it correctly selects only the files in group which has folder abc mandatorily present. Perfect , no issues about that. I think some sort of logical input checking is needed for this other than the obvious BUG mentioned.
Would it be possible to get a different color for excluded folder and also a mention in the GUI. Also a possibility to exclude any number of folders not only one...??

Is this Duplicate Cleaner Free - do you mean 3.0.1 rather than 3.1.0?

One quick point - you can change the list font size in Options.

DigitalVolcano wrote:Is this Duplicate Cleaner Free - do you mean 3.0.1 rather than 3.1.0?.

Yes it was 3.0.1.

One quick point - you can change the list font size in Options.

OK

2.Next I excluded c:\abc (which had some files already selected by the previous operation). What I get now...4042 files!!!

Does this mean you re-ran the scan with that folder excluded, or did you use a function such as 'unmark folder c:\abc' ?

Does this mean you re-ran the scan with that folder excluded, or did you use a function such as 'unmark folder c:\abc' ?

Not rerunning the scan. It was only to select amongst the duplicates. I have brought the comparison with the earlier version too. The preserve folder does not work anymore.

Not serious enough? Or is it only me who is reporting the issue.

Once again I am attempting to explain this predicament..It should be read along with the previous posts in this thread.Let us say after the search and duplicates are identified , the first marking of duplicates are done based on Files by creation time and mark by recently created. . Next as a test case take noet of the folder in which a file is marked. Try to exclude all of this folder. Now the marked files should come down. Instead it gets added up and , the folder which was supposed to be excluded still is ticked in the file list.

Which exact operation do you mean by 'Exclude' - is it the 'Mark all files that duplicate this folder tree elsewhere' context option, or the 'Select by Location' window, or something else?

thanks!

First tried to mark by this... Next tried to preserve files in this path while selecting those duplicating elsewhere..

The 'Select by Location' doesn't currently uncheck the files in the selected path, it only checks the copies it finds elsewhere (which is why your count went up). I agree this could be confusing, and go against the meaning of the word 'Preserve'. I think a good solution to this is to make this honour the 'Leave existing marks unchanged' option, which is usually off by default. Will add to the to-do list.

You can always use the Unmark->All files in this folder tree in addition to Select by location to mimic this behaviour for now.